Summary
Vannever Bush’s “As We May Think” is an extensive reflection on the nature of associative human thought as it relates to present and future technology. More specifically, Bush focuses on how a post-World War II world faces greatest challenges on focusing and transmitting, and not merely expanding, “the inherited knowledge of the ages” (1). The primary problem is that, as “specialization expands” (2), we are left with the impossible task of maintaining any measure of expertise in that specialization because of the amount of knowledge within it. Bush mentions how this “sort of catastrophe is undoubtedly being repeated all about us, as truly significant attainments become lost in the mass of the inconsequential” (2); to combat this, Bush turns to technology in hopes that its “cheap complex devices of reliability” (3) will reach a point of mirroring the brain’s pathways of “association” (12) as a means of information storing and recall.
Bush mentions a wide array of technology through the piece, each time applying the essay’s title phrase “may think” to show how technological advancements might potentially bring us closer to that indeterminate moment in the future when mechanisms mirror our minds. He mentions the “calculating machine” (3), “photography” (4), “facsimile transmission” (5), “The Encyclopoedia [sic] Britannica” (6), and “department store . . . charge sales” (11) – among others – to illustrate how these existing technologies could be changed and better illustrate how “[s]election by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized” (13). If we are able to make these technologies mirror our associative thought patterns, Bush believes our future research, either within specific fields or wide-scale surveys, will be documented and transmittable to those who follow in our footsteps: “The inheritance from the master becomes, not only his additions to the world’s record, but for his disciples the entire scaffolding by which they were erected” (15). His way of consolidating human records is called the "memex" (13), a device that could serve to merge mechanism and memory.
Lastly, though Bush mentions how “economics” (3) have frustrated these technological efforts in the past, the vast scale of human knowledge mandates that we must “mechanize our records” (17) through those associative patterns to ensure the future potential of our research and our species. Nothing less than the “wisdom of race experience . . . [and] the needs and desires of men” (17) hinges on that possibility.
Commentary
Though the piece was dense and filled with long-form hypotheticals about the nature of future technology, Bush’s focused approach on the associative connections between man and machine made this piece (even in its old age) a remarkable essay. Despite his limited 1945 perspective, Bush uncannily predicts the nature of many modern technologies even if he misses with particular details, as in his suggestion that a computer hard-drive might have the size and shape of “an ordinary desk” (13). If he was right with that prediction, I wasn't able to validate it.
All the same, he avoids fanciful and unrealistic predictions to ensure that we note the careful attention he’s given to these topics: “It might be striking to outline the instrumentalities of the future more spectacularly, rather than to stick closely to methods and elements now known and undergoing rapid development, as has been done here” (15). Consequently, his thoughts provide lasting perspective on the forms and forces that dictate technology’s evolution and mankind’s need to ensure associative mechanisms within our cultural products.
Questions
There were numerous technological examples sprinkled through the piece. Which ones did Bush appear to be most prophetic about?
Bush mentions in one example how the lack of an “extensive market” (9) limited the advancement of certain technologies. Do we still live with the same market restrictions with our technological creations? If not, why?
Vannever Bush’s “As We May Think” is an extensive reflection on the nature of associative human thought as it relates to present and future technology. More specifically, Bush focuses on how a post-World War II world faces greatest challenges on focusing and transmitting, and not merely expanding, “the inherited knowledge of the ages” (1). The primary problem is that, as “specialization expands” (2), we are left with the impossible task of maintaining any measure of expertise in that specialization because of the amount of knowledge within it. Bush mentions how this “sort of catastrophe is undoubtedly being repeated all about us, as truly significant attainments become lost in the mass of the inconsequential” (2); to combat this, Bush turns to technology in hopes that its “cheap complex devices of reliability” (3) will reach a point of mirroring the brain’s pathways of “association” (12) as a means of information storing and recall.
Bush mentions a wide array of technology through the piece, each time applying the essay’s title phrase “may think” to show how technological advancements might potentially bring us closer to that indeterminate moment in the future when mechanisms mirror our minds. He mentions the “calculating machine” (3), “photography” (4), “facsimile transmission” (5), “The Encyclopoedia [sic] Britannica” (6), and “department store . . . charge sales” (11) – among others – to illustrate how these existing technologies could be changed and better illustrate how “[s]election by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized” (13). If we are able to make these technologies mirror our associative thought patterns, Bush believes our future research, either within specific fields or wide-scale surveys, will be documented and transmittable to those who follow in our footsteps: “The inheritance from the master becomes, not only his additions to the world’s record, but for his disciples the entire scaffolding by which they were erected” (15). His way of consolidating human records is called the "memex" (13), a device that could serve to merge mechanism and memory.
Lastly, though Bush mentions how “economics” (3) have frustrated these technological efforts in the past, the vast scale of human knowledge mandates that we must “mechanize our records” (17) through those associative patterns to ensure the future potential of our research and our species. Nothing less than the “wisdom of race experience . . . [and] the needs and desires of men” (17) hinges on that possibility.
Commentary
Though the piece was dense and filled with long-form hypotheticals about the nature of future technology, Bush’s focused approach on the associative connections between man and machine made this piece (even in its old age) a remarkable essay. Despite his limited 1945 perspective, Bush uncannily predicts the nature of many modern technologies even if he misses with particular details, as in his suggestion that a computer hard-drive might have the size and shape of “an ordinary desk” (13). If he was right with that prediction, I wasn't able to validate it.
All the same, he avoids fanciful and unrealistic predictions to ensure that we note the careful attention he’s given to these topics: “It might be striking to outline the instrumentalities of the future more spectacularly, rather than to stick closely to methods and elements now known and undergoing rapid development, as has been done here” (15). Consequently, his thoughts provide lasting perspective on the forms and forces that dictate technology’s evolution and mankind’s need to ensure associative mechanisms within our cultural products.
Questions